If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Yes, but only when I don't have access to my wife's 400 f/5.6 L or my
300 f/4 L with a 1.4x ... in other words, in an emergency. I try to
stop down to f/8 or f/11 when doing this.
what is the image quality like? Still pretty good?

Adequate but not very good compared to the 400 f/5.6 L. Here's a link
to a site that tested the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS with the 2x vs the 100-400
L IS and the 70-200 w/ 2x lost. The 100-400 IS is the worst lens in my
kit so you get the idea ...

Yes, but only when I don't have access to my wife's 400 f/5.6 L or my
300 f/4 L with a 1.4x ... in other words, in an emergency. I try to
stop down to f/8 or f/11 when doing this.
what is the image quality like? Still pretty good?

Adequate but not very good compared to the 400 f/5.6 L. Here's a link
to a site that tested the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS with the 2x vs the 100-400
L IS and the 70-200 w/ 2x lost. The 100-400 IS is the worst lens in my
kit so you get the idea ...

Worst, in this case, is a relative term. The 100-400L is a pretty good
lens, it just suffers in comparison to other "L" lenses like the 70-200 f2.8
(w/o converter) and f4, and the 400 f2.8 and f4 lenses.
BTW, it's not the worst lens in my kit, I'd have to say the 16-35L is, but
nothing else will do what it does, while there are other lenses and
combinations of lenses that will do what the 100-400 will, and in some
cases, better.

Yes, I can pick between the 70-200 f/2.8 L, 300 f/4 L, 400 f/5.6 L,
100-400 L IS and 500 f/4 L IS and the 100-400 is definitely the weak
sister (relative?) in this litter.
The 100-400L is a pretty good lens

Now that you have a full frame digital body shoot a grey card or even
toned sky with it at 400 f/5.6, f/8 and f/11 and check for vignetting
.... I have one of the "good" ones per Roger Clark's tests (at least for
center resolution) and with a 1.6x body like the 10D vignetting is OK
wide open, with a 1.3x body (1D Mark II) I get too much light fall off
at the corners wide open and need f/8, and with a full frame body (1Ds)
I have to go to f/11 to get rid of the vignetting. This is the only
non-wide angle lens I own that has a vignetting problem like this so to
me it doesn't qualify as a "pretty good lens". None of the other four
tele lenses do this. I can even shoot the 500 f/4 L with a 2x wide
open with no problem, but not the 100-400 even without a converter.
... but nothing else will do what it does ...

That's the only reason I haven't dumped mine ... when I fly to Alaska
with space and weight limitations this lens seems to worm its way into
the bag beside the 500 f/4 L even though ideally I'd rather take the
70-200 and the 400 f/5.6 (last trip for instance I took the 28-70 f/2.8
L, 100-400 IS and 500 f/4 L IS and the bag still weighed 36 lbs with
two pro bodies ...) ... but the IS means I can shoot from a platform or
a plane or handheld or whatever with a couple extra stops and the
100-400 zoom range is very handy.

"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
oups.com...
The 100-400 IS is the worst lens in my kit
Skip Middleton writes ...

Worst, in this case, is a relative term.

Yes, I can pick between the 70-200 f/2.8 L, 300 f/4 L, 400 f/5.6 L,
100-400 L IS and 500 f/4 L IS and the 100-400 is definitely the weak
sister (relative?) in this litter.

It's also one of the least expensive of that lot. I've shot side by side
with a buddy who has the 70-200 f2.8/2X combination, and my results were a
little better with the 100-400, which is the main reason I haven't gotten
rid of it. It's still pretty good, relative to the other L zooms in our
quiver, the f2.8 triplets.
The 100-400L is a pretty good lens

Now that you have a full frame digital body shoot a grey card or even
toned sky with it at 400 f/5.6, f/8 and f/11 and check for vignetting
... I have one of the "good" ones per Roger Clark's tests (at least for
center resolution) and with a 1.6x body like the 10D vignetting is OK
wide open, with a 1.3x body (1D Mark II) I get too much light fall off
at the corners wide open and need f/8, and with a full frame body (1Ds)
I have to go to f/11 to get rid of the vignetting. This is the only
non-wide angle lens I own that has a vignetting problem like this so to
me it doesn't qualify as a "pretty good lens". None of the other four
tele lenses do this. I can even shoot the 500 f/4 L with a 2x wide
open with no problem, but not the 100-400 even without a converter.

Hmmmm, I haven't tried it with my 5D, but I never had a problem with it with
film, did you? BTW, mine is like yours, one of the good ones, based on
Roger's tests, too. In fact, if I remember correctly, you and I were part
of the discussion with him that his results weren't consistent with what we
both got...
... but nothing else will do what it does ...

That's the only reason I haven't dumped mine ... when I fly to Alaska
with space and weight limitations this lens seems to worm its way into
the bag beside the 500 f/4 L even though ideally I'd rather take the
70-200 and the 400 f/5.6 (last trip for instance I took the 28-70 f/2.8
L, 100-400 IS and 500 f/4 L IS and the bag still weighed 36 lbs with
two pro bodies ...) ... but the IS means I can shoot from a platform or
a plane or handheld or whatever with a couple extra stops and the
100-400 zoom range is very handy.

I just carried a bag with the 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, all f2.8, the 100-400,
20D and 5D, Sunpak TR-2000 battery pack and spare battery cluster and 580EX.
now there's some weight. It wasn't really a practical bag to carry, I was
just lugging those things into the camera store to see if I could find a bag
that would actually carry all that, plus auxiliary cords, batteries,
diffusers, memory cards and filters. No luck, so far...

hey skip what are flash exposures like with the 5D. Has the underexposure
problem been solved?

I wouldn't say "solved" as much as "much improved." It seems pretty much
spot on, but some circumstances still fool it, bright ambient room light
still causes it to underexpose, but not by as much, and with more
consistency, so +2/3 stop does the trick all the time...

I can pick between the 70-200 f/2.8 L, 300 f/4 L, 400 f/5.6 L,
100-400 L IS and 500 f/4 L IS and the 100-400 is definitely the
weak sister
Skip Middleton writes ...

It's also one of the least expensive of that lot.

As I recall (without looking it up) my 100-400 cost $450-500 more than
the 300 f/4 L or 400 f/5.6 L and about $300 more than my 70-200 L (non
IS) so I can't agree with you here ... the 500 f/4 is a different
beast, mine cost almost twice as much as all of these others combined
(and well worth it to me). I think the 500 has dropped at least $2,000
since I got mine though.
Now that you have a full frame digital body shoot a grey card or
even toned sky with it at 400 f/5.6, f/8 and f/11 and check for
vignetting ... with a full frame body (1Ds) I have to go to f/11 to
get rid of the vignetting.
Hmmmm, I haven't tried it with my 5D, but I never had a problem
with it with film, did you?

Yes, I saw this with film too, in low contrast light where it's more
noticeable ... somewhere I have a shot of a moose shot on a rainy day
in Alaska using Provia 100F with the EOS 3 and this lens wide open at
400 mm and I remember being really surprised and disappointed at the
light fall-off at the edges. In bright light it's not as noticeable
.... try it on your 5D and see if it's a problem. If shooting RAW the
Photoshop CS RAW converter has a useful vignetting tool that corrects
for this.

"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
oups.com...
I can pick between the 70-200 f/2.8 L, 300 f/4 L, 400 f/5.6 L,
100-400 L IS and 500 f/4 L IS and the 100-400 is definitely the
weak sister
Skip Middleton writes ...

It's also one of the least expensive of that lot.

As I recall (without looking it up) my 100-400 cost $450-500 more than
the 300 f/4 L or 400 f/5.6 L and about $300 more than my 70-200 L (non
IS) so I can't agree with you here ... the 500 f/4 is a different
beast, mine cost almost twice as much as all of these others combined
(and well worth it to me). I think the 500 has dropped at least $2,000
since I got mine though.
I was grouping it with the 300 f4 and 400 f5.6, I didn't realize the 70-200
was non IS, my IS version is $400more than the 100-400, when I bought mine,
it was less than $1200, not much more than the 400 f5.6 is now...
Now that you have a full frame digital body shoot a grey card or
even toned sky with it at 400 f/5.6, f/8 and f/11 and check for
vignetting ... with a full frame body (1Ds) I have to go to f/11 to
get rid of the vignetting.
Hmmmm, I haven't tried it with my 5D, but I never had a problem
with it with film, did you?

Yes, I saw this with film too, in low contrast light where it's more
noticeable ... somewhere I have a shot of a moose shot on a rainy day
in Alaska using Provia 100F with the EOS 3 and this lens wide open at
400 mm and I remember being really surprised and disappointed at the
light fall-off at the edges. In bright light it's not as noticeable
... try it on your 5D and see if it's a problem. If shooting RAW the
Photoshop CS RAW converter has a useful vignetting tool that corrects
for this.

Well, it's supposed to be rainy for the next day or so, so I'll try it out.
I don't think I ever tried it with film with an overcast, except once, and I
cropped the image heavily, so I don't know what the edges looked like...
--
Skip Middletonhttp://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com